P.S. as I noted above, I do think that having the OOG warning for the source data being out of display gamut is useful outside of the soft proof arena and for other reasons but in the softproof area it should show where the proofed image is outside of display gamut of course.

Photo_op8 wrote:

 

But then what would the Beta and this forum be for?

Proof of concept and fine tuning the LR4 1.0 release.

This process–even though many don't understand it–is important and does improve the final release.

Don't sell yourselves short. While major changes prolly won't occur, a lot can happen between beta and the final release of LR 4.

mmlux wrote:

 

I am getting very strange effect when I try to softproof the image with the profile for Moab Slicrock Metallic Pearl  paper for my Epson. I do not get the same effect for other profiles, however with this metallic paper something goes wrong. I wondered if anyone of you can replicate it. You can get the profiles from Moab page http://moabpaper.com/slickrock-metallic/

Yes I see it too on a Mac. There is something seriously wrong with this profile. If I soft proof in Photoshop, I see a different effect than LR but the perceptual table looks butt awful in CS5. I don’t know why the LR engine and the Photoshop engine both produce different and odd previews but it is something inside the profile.

Andrew Rodney wrote:

 

It is still odd how Photoshop and LR treat the previews so differently. But I agree, the profile seems to be screwy.

I've already reported here that apart from the sRGB soft proof bug (it doesn't actually soft proof the displayed image when you select sRGB) almost every profile I try to softproof against, whether it is for the HP wide format printer or for printing services, the soft proof is subtly different in Lightroom from the same in Photoshop. There is probably some fine tuning that needs to be done. The conceptual implementation is great though and I can see this being very very useful.

P.S. When I went the download the slickrock profile mentioned above, there was a mention that said to use the relative intent for this profile. The only paper for which it says this. Moab is probably aware there is an issue with the perceptual tables for this profile.

MOAB Slickrock Metallic Pearl Epson 4800 EPL.icc

(1.6M)

Media Type: Premium Luster. ****Be sure to use the Relative rendering intent when printing for best results.***

 

Sorry for the confusion.  I was trying to communicate the feedback I get at my workshops.  I ask what level of color management folks used and the satisfaction with their print output. Below is a “revised” table with my estimate of %satisfaction  vs. level of color management used.  Hope it is clearer.

Level of Color Management                       % Users Satisfied with print

• Managed by Printer                                                           10
• ICC Profile Color Management                                       65
• use a calibrated monitor                                                  15
• use “soft-proofing”                                                             10                                     

                                                                             Total    100% 

As I said, the numbers are estimated but there is little doubt about the trend. People who use a correct ICC profile workflow and a calibrated monitor are satisfied with their print output a high percentage of the time.